What would convince you that you're wrong?

None of us is infallible. We can all be wrong. So it's important that we carefully consider why we believe what we do, and understand what would convince us that we're wrong. After all, if nothing could ever convince you that you're wrong, then it's pretty clear that you're just believing what you want to believe. And why should anyone respect that?

There's nothing wrong with having firm opinions. Clearly, I have firm opinions myself. And really, there's nothing terribly wrong about being mistaken. We'd all like to avoid that, but it happens. We're only human. But you are very definitely at fault if you won't change your mind when the evidence indicates that you should. Being wrong isn't a big problem, but obstinately sticking to a false hypothesis, despite the evidence, is a problem.

I thought about that when reading this article about Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who first suggested a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and autism. The original research, based on a tiny sample size of only 12 autistic children, was published in a respected, peer-reviewed medical journal, The Lancet, in 1998 - and it was a real bombshell.

And understandably so. Diagnoses of autism in children have been increasing rapidly, and parents were - and are - becoming scared. And since autism is usually diagnosed at about the same age that children get these vaccines, it probably didn't seem unreasonable that there might be a connection between the two. Wakefield's research didn't attempt to show causation, but it was still a hypothesis that needed to be checked out.

Since then, though, 10 of the 13 doctors who worked on the study (Wakefield was the lead author) have renounced its conclusions. The Lancet has retracted the publication and said that it should never have been published. And Wakefield has been found guilty of more than 30 serious ethical lapses and banned from practicing medicine in the United Kingdom.

Among the ethical lapses were a couple of instances of serious financial conflict of interest. Wakefield had not disclosed that, two years before the publication of his research, he'd been hired by a lawyer to find that precise vaccine-autism link so the lawyer could file a class-action lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturer. Furthermore, Wakefield had patented his own vaccine, which would be worth a great deal of money if, and only if, the MMR vaccine could be discredited. None of this had been disclosed to The Lancet.

But really, that's not even the worst of it. The final nail in the coffin of Wakefield's hypothesis came when independent researchers were not able to duplicate his findings. Let's face it, scientists are only human. They're subject to all the flaws, failings, and weaknesses of any other human being. So, to be accepted by the scientific community, discoveries must be confirmed by multiple, independent researchers.

That didn't happen here. In fact, subsequent research generally found no link at all between vaccines and autism. Wakefield's claim was completely discredited. You really couldn't ask for a clearer example of the self-correcting power of science.

So that's the end of it, right? Let me quote from the article:

Mark Blaxill, an editor-at-large for the Age of Autism blog and a director of SafeMinds, an organization that investigates the role of mercury in autism, said Wakefield will continue to have his support, as well as the support of others who seek "safe" vaccines for children.

"It's a bad thing happening to a good man," Blaxill, who has an autistic daughter, told AOL Health Monday. "The charges are untrue and the so-called court was a travesty of justice. This was a political trial and [Wakefield] is being made a victim of the policy of the U.K. government and the pharmaceutical industry. This is a victory for industry and not for our children." ...

"When I look and listen to Andy Wakefield and I look and listen to opponents, there's really no contest as to who is the most credible," Blaxill said. "It is really despicable what the industry and public authorities are doing to Andy and to all of us who pay attention to the headlines, which are dominated by propaganda. It's our job to get up every day and tell the truth. That's why all of us are advocates and activists."

This guy is a true believer. If all this would not change his mind, what in the world would? Frankly, there was never good evidence for a link between autism and vaccines. At best, it was just a hypothesis. The evidence was never good enough for belief. I can see why people like Blaxill had hoped we'd found the cause of autism - or at least a cause - but we didn't. It's time to turn our attention elsewhere.

We need to understand why we hold certain opinions, our reasoning for believing them. And no matter how good our reasons might be, we need to accept the fact that we could be wrong. Blaxill was wrong about Wakefield and wrong about vaccines causing autism. But most likely, he will never accept that.

PS. I posted about this issue previously here. And for the facts in this case in comic book form, check this out. It's really quite good.